[OSM-talk] Tracks and there place in society

[colliar]

Am 24.05.2011 20:49, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
> Ben Robbins wrote:
>> All we need is a phisical list, and an access list.
> 
> Um, we have that already.
> 
> For physical tags, we have:
>     highway=footway, or
>     highway=cycleway, or
>     highway=bridleway, or
>     highway=track
> 
> See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging. "If it quacks like a
> duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, call it a duck." If you want
> to refine this further, there are other physical tags you can use, such as
> surface=.
> 
> For access, we have, and always have had, "access tags" for particular
> users. Such as:
>     foot=yes
>     horse=no
>     bicycle=permissive
> 
> One of the keenest principles in OSM (and one which tag proponents would do
> well to remember now and then) is that "we optimise for ease of mapping".
> Mappers are scarce resources.
> 
> So tagging systems should not impose an extra burden on the mapper, which
> means that there are long-established shortcuts that mappers can take. One
> of those is that if it both quacks like a footway (physical) and has access
> rights consistent with footways (access), you can infer one from the other.
> So a rural public footpath in the UK would typically be tagged:
>     highway=footway (physical, implies foot access)
> 
> But if it had additional permissions you could add
>     highway=footway (physical, implies foot access)
>     bicycle=permissive (access)
> 
> If it was only available because of the generosity of some owner or other,
> you could add
>     highway=footway (physical, implies foot access)
>     foot=permissive (overrides the above)
> 
> If it was a bit bigger physically, you might want to change it to:
>     highway=track
>     foot=yes
>     bicycle=no
>     horse=no
> 
> There are other tags you can add to "ice the cake". surface= is the obvious
> physical one. In the UK, we like the 'designation' tag, which adds the legal
> icing to this particular cake, and which you can infer access values from.
> And so on.
> 
> I know you've been away for a while, Ben, but it would help if you actually
> read some of what's happened since then. In the UK we are all happily
> mapping as per above and we really don't need someone who hasn't kept up
> (that's fine, we all have busy lives) to blunder in without checking and say
> "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG". One other thing that has changed is that we now
> have a tagging list, and even if you won't take this to talk-gb (which you
> should), you should take it to tagging.

I wonder that noone, so far, mentioned that we had similar discussions
on talk-de.
Please, do not discuss only in GB.

The sitiuation is even a bit more complicated because of law (especially
for bikes) and we have foot/bicycle=official, too.

I stoped using footway or cycleway at all.

And do not forget emergencies which could use a track but not a path.

Thanks
colliar